decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Running out of money won't kill this. | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I suppose that depends
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:40 PM EDT

Given the volume of filings SCOg used to enjoy - how long would it take a newly assigned Judge to get up to proper speed on the case?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They do have a point...
Authored by: squib on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:46 PM EDT
Point...?
I think that a lot of people would like to think: that after their tether to
this Earth are severed and they go to that big heaven-wide-web in the sky, that
somehow their efforts and endeavours whilst in the land of the living made this
world a little bit better. I wonder what goes through the mind of Bride et.al?
Please don't answer. It was a rhetorical question.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They do have a point...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:57 PM EDT

I am amused to see SCO twisting slowly in the wind, approaching the inevitable Chapter 7,

Um... they're in Chapter 7 now.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They do have a point...Or Not
Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 08:56 PM EDT
"On the other hand, SCO really does have a point. A year and a half to even
get a motion heard on whether they can reopen the case? That seems unreasonably
slow, even by the pace of District Court actions. (Which makes it seem like the
District Court is in fact deliberately stalling ..."

Let us not forget (as the District Court most certainly has not) that SCO had
the rapt attention of the Utah Court for four and half years. At that point,
having already consumed vast resources of the Court, and with something like 26
motions still pending, SCO declared bankruptcy - ordered the case
administratively closed. Three years later SCO asked for, and was granted, a
hearing on a motion to reopen [1089] which was granted, but then SCO couldn't
even figure out why it filed the motion in the first place. Now, yet another
two and a half years later, SCO is asking for attention once again.

Is the District Court "stalling"? Surely not ... or is it giving SCO
the ... "SCO treatment"? Nah, can't be.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Running out of money won't kill this.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:13 AM EDT
AFAIK, SCO restructured its relationship with its lawyers back
before (or just after) the bankruptcy, such that they
effectively pre-paid for representation through this case and
any potential appeals. So the lawyers are already paid for.

Basically, they don't need any more money, and the lawyers
aren't really allowed to pocket the money and run.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • No... but yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:45 AM EDT
They do have a point...
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT

Well, SCO were the ones who put the whole thing on hold in the first place. The ruling in the Novell case was about to come down, and once that happened the IBM case would've proceeded. It was SCO that, literally on the eve of the Novell ruling, dove into bankruptcy and forced the automatic stay of those cases. It was SCO who argued that those cases should not be allowed to proceed and that the rulings already handed down in the Novell case shouldn't be enforced. And it was SCO who argued, when IBM wanted the entire case reopened, that it shouldn't be reopened and allowed to proceed in full. Given that, if SCO's bothered by the cases being on hold I can't have much sympathy for them seeing as it's them responsible for the situation.

And although I haven't read the documents yet, I'd guess that SCO still doesn't want the IBM case reopened in full. They want their side of it to be reopened but want IBM's side left on hold so that IBM's defense is hamstrung. If SCO was really interested in having the case ruled on they'd ask for it to be reopened fully. But they haven't and they aren't, because they know if they allow IBM to counter them they're going to end up even more of a smoking crater than they already are.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not much of a point
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT

What do they hope to gain?

vs

What do they actually loose by closing up the bankruptcy doors and leaving the case against IBM administratively closed?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )